UKRAINE: THE FIREPOWER THAT UKRAINE NEEDS

Current discussions of whether U.S. should provide lethal weapons to Ukraine rarely focus on what exactly is needed to defeat Russian Army. U.S. Maj. Gen. Scales in his opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal explains why MLRSes would make Putin think twice before making another step towards escalation of the conflict in the Donbas.

With the fragile cease-fire brokered last week in Minsk, Belarus, already appearing to crumble, President Obama should begin sending Ukraine the "lethal defensive weapons" it needs-and desperately wants-to defend itself from further incursions by Russian troops and Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine.

If Washington began supplying Kiev with the latest weapons technologies now, it might deter future Russian aggression, and perhaps even dull President Vladimir Putin's apparent ambition to annex much, if not all, of eastern Ukraine. Half-measures, however, could make matters worse. A few U.S. arms in the hands of the Ukrainian army might give Mr. Putin the excuse he needs to broaden and intensify his campaign.

Some alternatives are already off the table. Supplying aircraft to the Ukrainian air force won't work because the Russians have mobilized sophisticated missile systems along Russia's western border, effectively walling off Ukraine from aerial intervention. Sending U.S. or NATO heavy-fighting gear like tanks and armored vehicles directly into the contested zones probably won't work either because the Russians have crowded their conquered space with a vastly superior arsenal of tanks and antitank missiles.

Sending small arms, ammunition and antitank ordnance to the Ukrainians will certainly help. But at this stage in the fighting the Russians and their rebel allies possess a level of materiel "overmatch" that cannot be overcome with light infantry weapons alone.

The Russians have recently introduced artillery-locating radars linked to long-range artillery units. These "artillery strike complexes" identify Ukrainian artillery firing positions and return fire in overwhelming barrages. Pro-Russian infantry forces follow each barrage with a quick ground assault, pushing the Ukrainians steadily away from the occupied zones. The Ukrainian army has no means of countering this.

Russian targets are mostly static. They consist of command-and-control facilities and armored vehicles positioned in bunkered fighting positions in and around the contested cities of Donetsk and Lugansk. MLRS would be able to destroy Russian targets methodically, one at a time. Such a campaign could slowly eliminate Russian static targets and force the fight to devolve into a dismounted infantry campaign, a campaign the Ukrainian army can win.The only possible solution to this new Russian assault is to counter it with standoff attacks from outside the battle zone using U.S.- and NATO-supplied long-range weapons. The U.S. Army has several battalions of Multiple Launch Rocket Systems on hand, which have much greater range and accuracy than the unguided "Grad" rocket launchers Kiev has now. Simply put, an MLRS launcher is a large rectangular box containing 12 long-range rockets sitting atop a tank-like vehicle. The rocket launcher can be moved quickly about the battlefield and fired in seconds, making it difficult to locate and strike. Each rocket can range over 40 miles and has a precision warhead that is capable of hitting point targets, like tanks and artillery pieces.

Training the Ukrainians to operate the MLRS would take time. But the system is relatively simple to employ and shoot. The fire control is automated, using on-board computers and navigation systems. The rockets are loaded in sealed "pods" that can be easily stored, transported and loaded.

Recall that it was massed batteries of MLRS-the Iraqis called their barrages "steel rain"-that were principally responsible for paralyzing and then obliterating Saddam 's artillery during Desert Storm in 1991. MLRS are also found in the arsenals of several NATO allies. Perhaps a collective aid program that donates the system to Kiev from many sources would send the signal to Mr. Putin that he faces a coalition rather than a single state.

Would just one weapons system be decisive? Probably not. But it seems unlikely that Mr. Putin could stand significant losses in his precious armored forces for long. Given Russia's flagging economy, it is unlikely that he would throw the dice and escalate the conflict with a full-scale invasion of western Ukraine. A more likely outcome would be a realization by the Russians that a bloody standoff wouldn't be in their best interests. At that point a real cease-fire might become more attractive.

No material support of the Ukrainian military will work unless the U.S. and NATO begin to send the right weapons and training cadres now. Delay means defeat, should the fighting break out in earnest. But immediate action using the best options available at this late date might well preserve the sovereignty of a friendly state and turn back a tyrant who threatens Europe.

I’m assuming that the U.S. is going to pay for all of this “aid”, aren’t they?

Let me enlighten you on something. The Department of Defense has tried to take away Tuition Assistance to military members for the last 3 years in a row, because we don’t have enough money. They are threatening to cut the A-10 completely from service, because we don’t have enough money. They are screwing retired military member’s Tricare and the VA system is a disaster, because we don’t have enough money. They lowered my BAH this year, and the DOD is the only entity that received a pay raise LESS than inflation rate in the entire federal government...because we don’t have enough money.

And yet, you want to send millions/billions of dollars of aid to Ukraine? If you feel so passionate about “aiding” them, then set up a Paypal account and feel free to donate your own money. Or better yet, go fight yourself instead of sending Joe Snuffy of the 82nd Airborne who has already been away from home for 7 deployments. We can’t even finish off ISIS or Al Qaeda, who are way more of a threat than the Luhansk volunteer forces and their illiterate Russian green men.

Obama has it all wrong...
Now let me give you pause to reflect:

F.D.R. 1941 State of the Union
“New circumstances are constantly begetting new needs for our safety. I shall ask this Congress for greatly increased new appropriations and authorizations to carry on what we have begun.
I also ask this Congress for authority and for funds sufficient to manufacture additional munitions and war supplies of many kinds, to be turned over to those nations which are now in actual war with aggressor nations.

Our most useful and immediate role is to act as an arsenal for them as well as for ourselves. They do not need man power, but they do need billions of dollars worth of the weapons of defense. The time is near when they will not be able to pay for them all in ready cash. We cannot, and we will not, tell them that they must surrender, merely because of present inability to pay for the weapons which we know they must have.

I do not recommend that we make them a loan of dollars with which to pay for these weapons—a loan to be repaid in dollars.

I recommend that we make it possible for those nations to continue to obtain war materials in the United States, fitting their orders into our own program. Nearly all their materiel would, if the time ever came, be useful for our own defense.

Taking counsel of expert military and naval authorities, considering what is best for our own security, we are free to decide how much should be kept here and how much should be sent abroad to our friends who by their determined and heroic resistance are giving us time in which to make ready our own defense.

For what we send abroad, we shall be repaid within a reasonable time following the close of hostilities, in similar materials, or, at our option, in other goods of many kinds, which they can produce and which we need.

Let us say to the democracies: “We Americans are vitally concerned in your defense of freedom. We are putting forth our energies, our resources and our organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world. We shall send you, in ever-increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. This is our purpose and our pledge.”

In fulfillment of this purpose we will not be intimidated by the threats of dictators that they will regard as a breach of international law or as an act of war our aid to the democracies which dare to resist their aggression. Such aid is not an act of war, even if a dictator should unilaterally proclaim it so to be.

When the dictators, if the dictators, are ready to make war upon us, they will not wait for an act of war on our part. They did not wait for Norway or Belgium or the Netherlands to commit an act of war.
Their only interest is in a new one-way international law, which lacks mutuality in its observance, and, therefore, becomes an instrument of oppression.

The happiness of future generations of Americans may well depend upon how effective and how immediate we can make our aid felt. No one can tell the exact character of the emergency situations that we may be called upon to meet. The Nation’s hands must not be tied when the Nation’s life is in danger.

We must all prepare to make the sacrifices that the emergency-almost as serious as war itself—demands. Whatever stands in the way of speed and efficiency in defense preparations must give way to the national need.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.